Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not fear mongering. Nice Alinsky try to discredit. I know Obama's history with the Joyce and Annenberg Foundations. His stance on gun ownership in the US (prior to holding public office), and that of George Soros on gun control at the international level, are of public record. Anyone can look it up if they wish to know facts rather than to spew political talking points.
Last time I checked, Obama has done absolutely nothing for gun control since holding Presidency. He isn't a threat right now. If anything, the firearm industry should be thanking him for their increased sales over the past few years.
Fear mongering, however, is obvious. You're throwing around buzzwords (bolded) in order to incite hype. Fear mongering is a tactic of politics.
...I stand behind my statement that Obama (and his puppet master Soros) would bann private ownership of firearms if they could find a way to do it. That it has not been done yet is of little consequence. In order to complete the Marxist agenda it will be a requirement. Hopefully that day will never be realized.
So while the Constitution does not specifically grant the right to vote not only does it fail to prohibit it but it sets up and clarifies rules and enables Congress with the power to enforce those rules to that the ability to vote is neither abridged nor denied any citizen age 18 or older, regardless of sex, race, or color.
.
However, the Constitution still does give states the right to deny the vote for any other reason, besides sex, race or color. For example, in Florida, in 2000, imagined and unproven criminality. If my state wants to ban anyone who owns a Japanese car from voting, they have a perfect constitutional right to. Or anyone who does not own a gun. Or anyone not wearing a US Flag lapel pin. Or anyone who has not registered to vote within a certain time frame. Or anyone who cannot prove legal residency, which can be defined however the state pleases. Aside from birth conditions over which a person has no control, they can deny the vote to anyone based on any voluntary behavior. Florida proved that, as has almost every other state. Florida denied the vote to thousands of people merely because they had (black sounding) names similar to those of felons. Florida allowed thousands of white Alabama residents to register in Florida, by exercising racial discretion in voter scrutiny.
The fact is, as long as sex or race discrimination is not conspicuous and provable, any state can deny the vote to any person for any reason. And they do. The Constitution neither grants nor denies felons the right to vote, the stats simply make that judgment themselves, and they could for any other reason, too.
They have an awful lot of guns, which is what most burglars are looking for in the first place. If a burglar breaks into a house and finds a stash of guns, that's the mother lode.
They have an awful lot of guns, which is what most burglars are looking for in the first place. If a burglar breaks into a house and finds a stash of guns, that's the mother lode.
I was referring to why Switzerland has not been invaded
I was referring to why Switzerland has not been invaded
OK, they have banks with an awful lot of money in them, including the safe deposit boxes of your enemy. Hitler (and Dick Cheney) had so much of his personal wealth stashed in Swiss banks, that he needed to defend the integrity and trustworthiness of Switzerland and the exchange value of the Swiss Franc. Which is why Switzerland stayed out of the Euro zone. The same reason nobody invades the Cayman Islands, who have no defense at all.
They have an awful lot of guns, which is what most burglars are looking for in the first place. If a burglar breaks into a house and finds a stash of guns, that's the mother lode.
Not if the gun is in the hands of his intended victim.
i am not sure, is defenseless and unprotected better? even rabbits are allowed to run away from unsafe places, here the wolves think that is discrimination.
happy easter
Not if the gun is in the hands of his intended victim.
If you are always in your house with the gun in your hand, you have nothing to worry about. Get a life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
